Status:     Online

Season's GreetingsEdit

Sources needed for Days of the Year pagesEdit

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without references are now being reverted on-sight but I've added a source for your addition to January 17.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Toddst1: Any chance of this being added to the queue for Jan 17 given it is the centenary? -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
So, I"m not quite sure what you're asking here. Most unsourced additions are being reverted, but given your reputation (as I understand it) as a super-solid core contributor, I fished around and backed up your edit with what I thought was a reliable source. Am I missing something? Cheers! :) Toddst1 (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@Toddst1: Never mind. I worded that badly. I was just trying to get the entry added to the staging for the forthcoming 17 Jan OTD. I went ahead and boldly added it to the staging while removing the Stockton School shooting that has been on the main page multiple times. Thanks for your help with the entry. I am usually more involved at ITN and not as familiar with the OTD side of the page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


You have warned the above editor repeatedly [1]. I have tried to engage with editor about behavior I consider disruptive and WP:PROMO, and this editor *never* responds to my attempts to engage on his/her talk page. Additionally, the editor almost never uses edit-summaries despite my requesting it. He/she deletes warnings on talk page without archiving and without acknowledging the problem. What can be done? I am concerned this is a WP:SPA or possibly even a paid editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I notified the editor of my concerns here. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Unless the editor is engaging in overt vandalism or something that is nakedly disruptive, my best suggestion is to go to ANI. Make your case. Be concise. State the facts while omitting nothing relevant. But don't go off on tangents. Cite diffs and the applicable WP:PAG. Notify all involved parties on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
AO, that being said, TheRedundancy125 is adding unsourced content now and again ([2]), and is still extensively editing the same articles while logged out, using IP addresses in the range, which I believe you warned them for previously. Ss112 22:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
User warned -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


Hi, you blocked (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a few days ago. They returned as soon as the block was lifted and are engaging in exactly the same behavior (violating WP:ENGVAR, WP:SUBCAT). Should I bring it up elsewhere or does this work? Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked x 2 weeks. I like original mistakes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, they certainly noticed...  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
LOL... That may be the best comeback to a block I've ever had directed at me. That's so funny I'm not even going to strip them of their TPA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that's the right attitude. If I'm ever blocked, I hope you'll be the one to do it.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Map doneEdit

Hello, just to notify you that the map is done and has been published. Veverve (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Saying hello and giving informationEdit

Hi, welcome back from your holidays! I just wanted to let you know the I renamed Disappearance of Jorge Müller and Carmen Bueno page as I had added Carmen Bueno middle name to the title, instead of her first name. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Also could you please add an article that I have upgraded to the List of fugitives from justice who disappeared. If so I will give you the article to add. I would really like that. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@Davidgoodheart: what article? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
This one Kemar Jarrett disappeared April 2002, now captured. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@Davidgoodheart: The article seems to suggest this individual is no longer a fugitive. Am I misreading something here? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
He belongs in the "fugitives no longer sought section of the article", which is there for that purpose. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@Davidgoodheart: I'm not altogether sure that is a useful section. There are so many criminals who were at one point a fugitive that listing even a fraction of them would blow up the article. I think the criteria for that section needs to be sharply narrowed, or perhaps even have the section removed entirely. The criteria as it stands is far too broad. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Evaded block as

Hello, the IP which you previously blocked for 3 months has evaded the block as Could you do the same for this one? (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Roger ScrutonEdit

 On 13 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Roger Scruton, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested moveEdit

The talk on 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism has reached a clear consensus. Since you are an admin, not involved into this discussion, and I since from what I understand Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure is to be used only if the consensus is unclear, I contact you to request a closing. Could you move the page 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism to "Moscow–Constantinople schism (2018–present)" and close the RfM? Thanks in advance. Veverve (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

And... we just lost that consensus, maybe I have been too quick to judge. Veverve (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Veverve: Yeah, I'd let that discussion stay open for a little longer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Deleted CategoryEdit

The Category "People who were expelled from school" was deleted. The first thing that I want to know is are you able to get me the names of the people who were on this category. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Davidgoodheart: I don't think so. However I am not the world's most tech savvy admin. Perhaps Oshwah could provide a more definitive answer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Davidgoodheart - Dang... That's a good question. I attempted to review the page history as well as the "what links here" special page for a category that's currently being used; neither tools provided the information that you would be looking for. I even restored this category for a brief moment to see if there were any articles that were still within it - there were none. This either means that it was empty at the time of its deletion, or the deleting administrator did his/her due diligence to remove all pages from that category before deleting it. Unfortunately, there isn't a way to look up the category's history and see which articles that were in it, meaning that there's no real way of grabbing that information. You could look through the deleting administrator's contributions at the time he/she deleted the category, and see if they edited articles immediately beforehand to remove the category from them first. If they didn't, it's likely that it was empty when it was deleted. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
You cannot directly get what was previously in a category. The best you can do is find the edits that emptied the category. In this case it was these edits. — JJMC89(T·C) 07:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
JJMC89 - Excellent answer! I learned something new! <3 ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspicious userEdit

Hi AO. I've just come across the user Mcrrythenight, who looks to be a single-purpose account disputing what is and is not a single from various pop artists' albums (I guess this is a new thing now). They registered only two days ago, and they look very suspicious to me—do you see enough to ask Bbb23 to do a CU? Update: I reported them at ANV for their blankings, and they were blocked for a week, but I still think they might be a sock. Ss112 14:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ss112: Their pattern of editing does look suspicious. But just as an fyi, Bbb23 doesn't have a restricted talk page and you don't need to be an admin to let them know if you think something looks dicey. If you think something may need a glance from a CU just drop them a line or a private email (CU requests are one of those things that are sometimes handled discreetly). The same applies to most of the other CUs. They don't bite (usually). -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I wonder who "usually" refers to. I only bite when I'm hungry, and I just had a very nice lunch. I suppose Ss112 could be dessert, though... --Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I have gone directly to Bbb23 before, particularly when you have been absent or otherwise unable to additionally assess whether you believe the user is suspicious. The only reason I ask is to have a second opinion and another pair of eyes assess what they've been up to so as to rule out whether it's just me thinking something's up, or even something you yourself may recognise and block the editor directly for without need for a CU. Ss112 23:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC) has evaded block (again)Edit

The IP which was previously blocked as has evaded the block again as It seems the IP address is regularly changed over some course of time. Should you continue the block? (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern. (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
NP. Happy editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


CheatCodes4ever is a blocked sockpuppet with talk page access revoked. They are currently evading their talk page block by instead using the talk page of one of their alternate accounts, User talk:Wiiuplayer. Could you consider revoking talk page access there too? Thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

TPA revoked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Dorsetonian (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summariesEdit

Just came across the user Mediafanatic17 leaving summaries like these: [3], [4]. If I even tried to talk to them, I know they wouldn't listen, so could you drop them a line? Thanks. Ss112 13:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Already warned by Meters. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

White Star Ships listEdit

White Star Ships listEdit

I edited that article because I am a big fan of ocean liners not sailing ships I hardly know those ships existed please do not revert it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!! please do not!!!!!!!!!!! I repeat please do not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and if you do edit only the ships names not the knickname of the RMS Olympic I put in beside it that was like that in real life Sincerely Luke Starling

@Luke Starling: This is an encyclopedia and we cover all sorts of things you may not have an interest in. You need to stop blanking sourced material from this or any other article without an explanation that is supported by our community policies and guidelines. This is the third time you have done this and the third time you have been reverted. I understand that you are a new editor but this is disruptive and needs to stop. I have posted a formal warning on your talk page. If this continues you may be blocked from editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Question on blanking of contentEdit

Moved... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Earlier today you protected List of My Hero Academia characters because me and Serial Number 54129 were involved in an edit war because he was blanking material on the page, some of which was sourced directly from voice actors of the series, and others that could simply remove original research instead of being blanked. Later, he reported the article to be protected, despite the fact that I almost completely rewrote the article instead of undoing his edits. Because of what you said to Luke Starling about blanking articles without explanation above, I'm genuinely curious on what the policy on unexplained blanking and page rewrites are.

By the way, if this breaks WP:FORUMSHOP, I'll stop. I don’t want to bring discussion about that specific page to your talk, but I do want to know what the policies on blanking and rewriting whole articles are for future reference. If it is preferable to blank an article rather than rewrite it, I will try not to repeat that mistake. (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I will take another look at the article shortly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I am very grateful that you will take another look. (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.